Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Patryn of Elvenshae" data-source="post: 1806395" data-attributes="member: 23094">Yep.It's a puzzler, ain't it?Actually, the exact text of the rules is:So, what exactly is a flanking bonus?&nbsp; The only literal flanking bonus mentioned in the text is the one that applies to melee attacks.Of course, that makes the second statements redundant, since you only get the bonus on melee attacks &quot;if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.&quot;The only way in which the second statement is not redundant is, when it mentions &quot;a flanking bonus,&quot; if it refers to &quot;any and all positive ramifications of flanking,&quot; which would include the possibility of Sneak Attacks.Thus, in order to be in the flanking condition, the only thing that needs to happen is that a line must be drawn through the opponent to an ally on the other side.&nbsp; The length of the line is irrelevant.If you want to benefit from flanking, the fellow on the other side must be threatening the opponent - though you need not be threatening the opponent.Furthermore, if you want a +2 flanking bonus on your attack roll, you need to make a melee attack.The other alternative is that the second statement is merely redundant for the sake of redundancy, and we are back where we started, with the rogue being able to Sneak Attack with his crossbow because his target is 20' away, and his ally is 100' away in the same direction.See above.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Patryn of Elvenshae, post: 1806395, member: 23094"] Yep. It's a puzzler, ain't it? Actually, the exact text of the rules is: So, what exactly is a flanking bonus? The only literal flanking bonus mentioned in the text is the one that applies to melee attacks. Of course, that makes the second statements redundant, since you only get the bonus on melee attacks "if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner." The only way in which the second statement is not redundant is, when it mentions "a flanking bonus," if it refers to "any and all positive ramifications of flanking," which would include the possibility of Sneak Attacks. Thus, in order to be in the flanking condition, the only thing that needs to happen is that a line must be drawn through the opponent to an ally on the other side. The length of the line is irrelevant. If you want to benefit from flanking, the fellow on the other side must be threatening the opponent - though you need not be threatening the opponent. Furthermore, if you want a +2 flanking bonus on your attack roll, you need to make a melee attack. The other alternative is that the second statement is merely redundant for the sake of redundancy, and we are back where we started, with the rogue being able to Sneak Attack with his crossbow because his target is 20' away, and his ally is 100' away in the same direction. See above. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification